Delhi High Court
Kishor Kumar vs Manoj Kumar on 19 September, 2014
$~ 66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision : 19th September, 2014
+ CS(OS) 67/2007
KISHOR KUMAR ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Narula and Mr.Ajay Kalra,
Advocates
versus
MANOJ KUMAR ..... Defendant
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.35,83,704
alongwith pendent lite and future interest @ 24% p.a. Summons in the
suit were issued to the defendant on 02.02.2007, 29.03.2007 and
11.05.2007. Counsel for the defendant entered appearance on 17.08.2007.
Defendant filed his written statement on 03.12.2007 and plaintiff filed
replication on 22.01.2008. Pleadings in the matter were completed on
31.03.2008 and issues were framed on 06.05.2008. Plaintiff filed an
application under Order 8 Rule 16 CPC for recording evidence of father
of the parties, Sh.Viresh Ram and the same was allowed. Cross-
examination of Sh.Viresh Ram(PW1) was concluded on 23.08.2008.
Mr.Kishor Kumar (PW2) tendered his examination-in-chief vide
Ex.PW1/A on 20.01.2009. Cross-examination of PW2, Mr.Kishor Kumar
was concluded on 06.05.2010. Another witness Smt.Sheela Kumari
(PW3), being sister of the parties tendered her examination-in-chief vide
Ex.PW3/A and was cross-examined on 09.11.2010.
2. Summoned witnesses, Mr. N.K.Gaur (PW4) and Mr.P.K. Gupta (PW5)
were examined and discharged on 09.03.2011. Another summoned
witness, Mohd. Imraan (PW6) was examined and discharged on
24.08.2011. On 15.07.2013, counsel for defendant submitted that he was
not receiving any instructions from the defendant and he intended to issue
notice to defendant for withdrawing his vakalatnama. Wife of plaintiff
Ms.Sarita Lall (PW7), also tendered her examination-in-chief on evidence
on 03.05.2014. None appeared for the defendant on 19.12.2013,
27.03.2014, 03.05.2014, 28.05.2014 and on 15.09.2014, consequently
defendant was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 15.09.2014.
3. Plaintiff, Sh.Kishor Kumar (PW2), has filed his affidavit by way of
evidence and the same has been exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. He has deposed
in his affidavit that he is an Engineer by profession and is presently
employed at Commonwealth Bank of Australia as Network Engineer. He
shifted to Australia in the year 1991 and for the past many years he has
been employed and living in Australia. Further, PW2 has filed the present
suit through Sh.Amitabh Prasad s/o late Sh.B.S. Prasad, r/o D-3/3060,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and has executed a General Power of Attorney
dated 30.10.2006. The General Power of Attorney dated 30.10.2006 bears
the signature of PW2 at point 'A'. The vakalatnama and the present suit
has been signed and verified by the Power of Attorney, Shri Amitabh
Prasad. He has also deposed that he can identify the signature of Shri
Amitabh Prasad as he has seen him signing and writing and has received
letters from him, which bears his signature. True copy of the General
Power of Attorney dated 30.10.2006 has been exhibited as Ex. PW2/1.
4. PW2 has also deposed that the defendant is his brother and son of Shri
Viresh Ram and Smt. Urmila Devi. The parents of the parties are old and
are living in India at Chatra, Jharkhand. The father of the parties, Shri
Viresh Ram is a retired Gram Panchayat Supervisor and lives on
Jharkhand government pension. He is suffering from heart and kidney
disease and is living with help of a pacemaker. The mother of the parties,
Smt. Urmila Devi, is a housewife. She lost her left hand completely in an
accident and is disabled since the year 1985. The three younger sisters of
the parties namely Sheela Kumari, Mridula Kumari and Manjula Kumari
are all married and are living with their husbands at Patna (Bihar),
Hazaribag (Jharkhand) and Ranchi (Jharkhand) respectively. Further,
PW2 regularly sent monies to his parents for their maintenance and
household requirements. The sisters of the parties took personal care of
the parents in the absence of any active care from defendant or his family
members.
5. PW2 has further deposed that the defendant is B.Sc. graduate from Ranchi
University and holds a Post Graduate Diploma in Information
Technology. The wife of the defendant has never actively looked for
employment except on few occasions. He has also deposed that the
defendant has never contributed financially for the parents and does not
send any money to the parents and is grossly neglecting them and has
refused to maintain them. In fact, the defendant and his wife are harassing
the parents and the Defendant has exerted undue pressure on the parents
and coerced the father to give him the pension received by the father of
the parties.
6. PW2 has next deposed that during his visit to India on 25.06.1995, the
defendant approached him and advised and requested him to lend sizeable
amount of money, so that the defendant would safely invest the same in
immovable properties in India, as the appreciation of properties at that
time was quite phenomenal. The defendant assured and promised PW2
that on sale of the immovable property (ies) purchased with the money
lent by PW2 to him, he would repay the monies lent alongwith handsome
returns. It was thus agreed that on appreciation in the real estate market or
in case of need of PW2, the defendant would sell the property, with the
consent of PW2 and return the loan amount and would also give 75% of
the profits/returns from the sale of the properties to PW2. He has also
deposed that he agreed to the said proposal after consulting his parents
and sisters, who also advised him that such an arrangement of lending
money to the defendant for buying immovable properties would work out
smoothly and that the defendant would keep his promise. Accordingly
PW2 and the defendant entered into the agreement in above terms on
28.06.1995 at Chatra in the presence of their parents and sisters Smt.
Sheela Kumari, Smt. Mridula Kumari and Smt. Manjula Kumari, who
witnessed the same.
7. Further, apart from returning the principal amount along with the 75% of
the profits/appreciation earned on disposing of the immovable
property(ies), the defendant also assured PW2 that till such time the
immovable property(ies) are sold, they would fetch handsome rentals
without any hassles and that the 75% of the rentals earned from
property(ies) bought by the defendant by utilizing the moneys loaned by
PW2 to him, would be paid to PW2. Having been lured and carried away
by the assurances made by the defendant, PW2, blindly and without the
slightest suspicion of the things, sent the following monies to the
defendant/his agents as per defendant's instructions vide electronic money
transfer:-
Sl. Date of Remittance Sent / Credited vide Name of Amount
by me to the EFT to the Account the Bank (Rs.)
No. Defendant No.
1. 27.12.1996 01SBP 75 28100 ANZ, GK-I, 1,00,000/-
c/o N. A. Sheshadri New Delhi
2. 23.04.1997 - - do - 2,09,404/-
3. 22.10.1997 A/c 01 SMP 3536900 - do - 2,24,000/-
C/o Manoj Kumar
4. 24.02.1998 A/c 01 SMP 3536900 25,614/-
C/o Manoj Kumar
5. - do - - - do - 2,20,000/-
6. 06.07.1998 - do - - do - 95,000/-
7. 06.04.1999 - do - - do - 9,000/-
8. 27.07.1999 - do - - do 1,60,000/-
9. 02.11.1999 - do - - do - 54,686/-
10. 11.07.2000 - do - - do - 1,00,000/-
11. 14.07.2000 - do - - do - 60,000/-
12. 31.10.2000 - do - - do - 2,06,000/-
13. 24.07.2003 - do - - do - 20,000/-
Total 14,83,704/-
The original telegraphic transfer receipts dated 27.12.1996, 23.04.1997,
22.10.1997, 24.02.1998, 06.04.1999, 27.07.1999, 02.11.1999, 11.07.2000,
14.07.2000 and 31.10.2000 have been exhibited as Ex.PW2/2 to
Ex.PW2/11, respectively.
8. PW2 has also deposed that apart from the aforesaid amount of
Rs.14,83,704/- sent by him through electronic money transfer to the
defendant/his agents as loan, PW1 has also, during all visits to India over
the last 17 years, given monies amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- as loan, to the
defendant. This amount was / is also treated as loan by the defendant.
9. PW2 has further deposed that the defendant invested the aforesaid
amounts lent by PW2 in purchase of an immovable property at Dwarka
i.e. Flat No. 68, Sector 12, Pocket 3, Dwarka, New Delhi 110 075 on hire
purchase basis at a total cost of Rs. 12 Lakhs. The defendant intimated to
PW2 over phone, sometime in the year 1996 that initially payment
required was Rs.8,80,000/- and further payment would be required at the
time of delivery of the possession. The copy of the letter dated 20.02.1997
issued by the Delhi Development Authority has been exhibited as
Ex.PW2/12. The copy of the Challan No.098160 issued by the Delhi
Development Authority in favour of the defendant has been exhibited as
Ex.PW2/13.
10. PW2 has next deposed that the first installment of the aforesaid flat was
paid by the defendant sometime in April 1997 and after payment of all the
installments, the property was transferred in the name of the defendant
sometime in the year 1998-1999. In this regard, PW2 has placed on record
alongwith list of documents, the emails and letters sent by the defendant,
wherein the defendant clearly and unequivocally agreed that the monies
sent by PW2 to him have been invested in purchase of the above referred
property and that he would repay the loan amount with 75% on the
profits/ returns when the said property is sold, as agreed between the
parties. The original letters dated 30.09.1998, 12.06.1999, 22.10.1999,
21.12.1999, 13.01.2004 and two more letters without any date sent by the
defendant to PW2 have been exhibited as Ex.PW2/14 to Ex.PW2/20,
respectively.
11. PW2, Sh.Kishor Kumar, has also deposed that the Defendant sent to him
various e-mails from his e-mail id and the said e-mails dated 21.04.1997,
emails of year 1999, 19.04.2005, 12.05.2005, 18.05.2005, 26.07.2005,
24.08.2005, 17.11.2005, 18.11.2005, 20.11.2005, 24.11.2005, 27.11.2005,
29.11.2005, 30.11.2005, 02.12.2005, 06.12.2005, 08.12.2005, 10.12.2005,
21.12.2005, 31.12.2005, 13.01.2006, 19.01.2006, 29.01.2006, 02.02.2006,
03.02.2006, 05.02.2006, 06.02.2006, 06.02.2006, 27.02.2006, 03.03.2006,
31.03.2006, 01.04.2006, 03.04.2006, 04.04.2006, 26.07.2006, 28.07.2006
and 02.08.2006 have been exhibited as Ex.PW2/21 to Ex.PW2/57,
respectively.
12. PW2 has further deposed that the defendant later on sometime in June
1999 started suggesting/assuring PW2 that instead of disposing of the
aforesaid property and repaying the principal amount as also share of
appreciation amount, the defendant instead would transfer the property at
Dwarka in the favor of PW2. The defendant requested that in such a case
PW2 would pay the defendant a share in the profit of the property on the
sale of the property. In this regard PW2 followed up for 3 weeks with the
defendant with phone calls and via emails, but no steps were taken by the
defendant for the transfer of the property. Sensing something amiss, PW2
called up his parents to know about the status of the monies lent to the
defendant. The parents of the parties were also not happy about the way
the defendant was behaving with them. They informed PW2 that life style
of the defendant has become lavish and that he is merrily spending money
sent by PW2 without even caring for them.
13. PW2 has also deposed that the defendant and his wife consistently refused
to live with parents of the parties at Chatra, Jharkhand considering it
below their dignity to live in Jharkhand State. Thereafter, the parents and
one of the sisters of the parties shifted to Delhi to live with the defendant
in 2005. PW2 also visited India in March 2006 for settling his parents.
Within a span of 2 months, the defendant and his wife made the living
condition so worse that the sister of the parties with her 3 year old
daughter had to leave Delhi. Later the parents of the parties, at the first
opportunity, along with elder sister's daughter decided to leave Delhi. It
was too difficult for the heart patient father and mother with serious
disability to live with the defendant. The defendant and his wife have
systematically driven out the parents from Delhi, so that they could sell
the aforesaid immovable properties, without notice to anyone.
14. PW2 has next deposed that on 21.06.2006, he came to know from his
parents that the defendant had disposed the property at Dwarka. The
defendant also refused to divulge any detail to the parents and this
prompted PW2 to visit India on 28.06.2006, which involved two weeks of
personal leave and travel cost of approximately 2 Lakhs. PW2 met
defendant on 30.06.2006 and came to know from his parents that on
21.06.2006, the defendant had disposed of the said property at Dwarka for
Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lacs Only). Thereafter, when PW2
contacted the defendant over phone, defendant initially gave vague and
evasive answers saying that he would inform about the status of the flat
after sometime. Ultimately, the defendant accepted the fact that the said
flat at Dwarka has been disposed of for Rs.40,00,000/-.
15. Further, on hearing the news that the defendant has sold the property at
Dwarka, PW2 kept sending emails to the defendant between 24.07.2006
to 14.08.2006, asking the defendant about the amount of sale proceeds
received by him and further requesting him to repay the loan taken from
PW2 along with share of appreciation earned by selling the said property.
The defendant in his emails dated 21.07.2006, 24.07.2006 and
13.08.2006, has agreed and accepted the fact that the property at Dwarka
was bought out of the moneys lent to him by PW2 but, he failed to
divulge in any details with regard to the sale of the said property and
further refused to repay the loan along with the profits earned thereon.
The emails dated 21.07.2006, 24.07.2006 and 13.08.2006 sent by the
defendant have been exhibited as Ex.PW2/58 to Ex.PW2/60,
respectively.
16. PW2 has also deposed that the defendant, instead of repaying the said
loan amount and share of appreciation/profit of the property at Dwarka,
has misappropriated the monies and converted them to his own personal
use by investing the same in purchase of two properties, one at
Jamshedpur and another at Kundli, the details of which are given below.
Sl. Description of Date of Estimated Remarks
No. the property Purchase/ Date Value of the
of Execution of property
the Sale Deed /
Date of
allotment
1. The property at Sale Deed is yet Rs.20,00,000/- This property
Kundli is under to be executed. has just been
construction, booked. The
the detail with same is still
regard to its under
address is not construction.
immediately
available.
2. No. 242, Not known to Rs.15,00,000/-
Diamond the Plaintiff.
Block, Golden
Town, Sonari,
Jamshedpur
831011
17. PW2 has further deposed that the receipt dated 20.09.2005 and letter
dated 27.03.2006 issued by Omaxe Construction Ltd. in favour of Shri
Rahul Kumar Harjani owner of the property bearing no. 824 at Kundli
from whom the defendant has purchased the said property have been
exhibited as Ex.PW2/61 to Ex.PW2/62, respectively. The copy of the
allotment application has been exhibited as Ex.PW2/63. The affidavit of
Shri Rahul Harjani has been exhibited as Ex.PW2/64. The letter dated
02.07.2002 issued by the Office of the Income Tax Officer in favour of
Shri Rahul Harjani has been exhibited as Ex.PW2/65. The copy of the
identity card issued by Election Commission of India in favour of Shri
Rahul Harjani has been exhibited as Ex.PW2/66. The copy of the
Affidavit-cum-undertaking-cum-indemnity and affidavit of the defendant
has been exhibited as Ex.PW2/67 and Ex.PW2/68, respectively.
18. PW2 has next deposed that the loan amount lent to the defendant is
Rs.14,83,704/ and the property at Dwarka was sold for Rs.40 Lakhs.
Therefore, the total profit on the sale is Rs.28 Lakhs. Share of PW2 in
profits is Rs.21 Lakhs. The defendant is liable to pay a sum of
Rs.35,83,704/- towards repayment of the money lent including the share
of PW2 in the appreciation/profits from the sale of property at Dwarka.
Defendant has earned interest by illegally withholding the aforesaid
amount. Therefore, PW2 has claimed interest at the rate of 24% per
annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.35,83,704/- from the date of sale of
property in question till realization of the same.
19. Plaintiff has also filed affidavits by way of evidence of Sh.Viresh Ram
(PW1), father of the parties herein and Smt.Sheela Kumari (PW3), sister
of the parties and their affidavits have been exhibited as Ex.PW1/A and
Ex.PW3/A, respectively. PW1 and PW3 have deposed on the lines of
PW1.
20. Plaintiff has further filed affidavit by way of evidence of Mrs.Sarita Lall
(PW7), wife of the plaintiff herein and the same has been exhibited as
Ex.PW7/A. She has deposed in her affidavit that the money was given by
her husband i.e. the plaintiff herein, to the defendant by demand draft sent
vide lodgment document date 22.10.1991 in the name and address of
Ms.Madhumita Saha, as the defendant did not have any permanent
address at that time. The said document bears the signatures of Mr.Manab
Barat, friend of her husband. It has also been deposed that she can identify
his signatures, as she is conversant with signatures and have seen him
singing and writing, The lodgment document alongwith bank receipt
have been exhibited as Ex.PW7/1 (Colly).
21. PW7 has also deposed that her husband also transferred money to the
defendant through lodgment document registered post dated 03.03.1992
with respect to the Bank Draft of INR 19,156/-; lodgment document dated
16.06.1992 (alongwith bank receipt with respect to the Bank Draft of INR
18,900/-); lodgment document dated 05.08.1992 (alongwith bank receipt
with respect to the Bank Draft of INR 10,329/-); lodgment document
dated 20.03.1993 with respect to the Bank Draft of INR 22,000/-;
lodgment document dated 12.07.1993 with respect to the Bank Draft of
INR 20,000/- and two cheques for INR 10,000/-; slip dated 01.11.1993
(alongwith bank receipt with respect to the Bank Draft of INR 40,000/-);
lodgment document dated 24.10.1994 with respect to the Bank Draft of
INR 22,674/-; lodgment document dated 23.12.1994 (alongwith bank
receipt with respect to the Bank Draft of INR 1,19,040/-); lodgment
document dated 20.08.1996 for bank draft of INR 27,079/-. All the
aforesaid documents bear signatures of her husband i.e. plaintiff, that she
can identify and the same have been exhibited as Ex.PW7/2 to
Ex.PW2/10, respectively.
22. PW7 has further deposed that the money was also paid by her husband to
the defendant through telegraphic transfer. The telegraphic transfer receipt
dated 06.06.1995 with respect to transfer of INR 75,000/-; receipt dated
23.04.1997 with respect to transfer of INR 2,09,404.70; receipt dated
22.10.1997 with respect to transfer of INR 2,24,000/- and receipt dated
29.04.1998 with respect to transfer of INR 2,20,000/. All the aforesaid
documents bear signatures of the defendant. It has also been deposed that
PW7 can identify the signatures of the defendant, as she is well
conversant with the handwriting and signatures of the defendant and have
seen him signing and writing. The aforesaid documents have been
exhibited as Ex.PW7/11 to Ex.PW7/14, respectively.
23. Further, the telegraphic transfer of money to the defendant was also made
by PW7 on behalf of her husband. The telegraphic receipt dated
06.07.1998 with respect to transfer of INR 95,000/- bears the signatures of
PW7 and the same has been exhibited as Ex.PW7/15. The telegraphic
transfer was also done by her husband on 06.04.1999 in favour of the
defendant for INR 9,000/-. The same bears the signatures of her husband
and has been exhibited as Ex.PW7/16.
24. PW7 has also deposed that her husband also made payment in the name of
his father Sh.Viresh Ram vide Lodgment document Registered post dated
19.11.1991 (alongwith bank receipt with respect to the Bank Draft of INR
19,909/-); Lodgment document dated 06.05.1992 (alongwith bank receipt
with respect to the Bank Draft of INR 10,000/-); Lodgment document
dated 16.08.1993 (alongwith bank receipt with respect to the Bank Draft
of INR 1,0405/-); Lodgment document dated 23.03.1994 (alongwith bank
receipt with respect to the Bank Draft of INR 1,09,520/-); Lodgment
document dated 24.10.1994 (alongwith bank receipt with respect to the
Bank Draft of INR 22,674/-); Lodgment document dated 08.02.1995
(alongwith bank receipt with respect to the Bank Draft of INR 57,000/-);
Lodgment document dated 08.05.1995 with respect to the Bank Draft of
INR 34,213/-; Lodgment document dated 06.11.1995 with respect to the
Bank Draft of INR 12,629.50/-; Lodgment document dated 17.06.1996
(alongwith bank receipt with respect to the Bank Draft of INR 11,700/-);
Lodgment document dated 12.07.1996 (alongwith bank receipt with
respect to the Bank Draft of INR 27,830/-. All the aforesaid documents
bear signatures of her husband i.e. plaintiff. The documents have
exhibited as Ex.PW7/17 to Ex.PW7/26, respectively. It has also been
deposed that the husband of PW7 also sent a demand draft in favour of his
father Sh.Viresh Ram vide Original customer advice dated 01.02.2000
(alongwith copy of Bank Draft of INR 26,800/- dated 01.02.2000). The
said customer advice has been exhibited as Ex.PW7/27, Payment was
also made vide demand draft No. 878461185 for INR 95,000/-, drawn on
Westpac Banking Corporation. The copy of the customer advice
alongwith demand draft has been marked as Mark-A. Further payment
was also made by Sh. Kishor Kumar to Smt. Urmila Devi (mother of
defendant) vide draft No. 878463157 dated 24.08.2001 for INR 71,331/-.
The original customer advice dated 24.08.2001 has been exhibited as
Ex.PW7/28.
25. PW7 has further deposed that the defendant has written letters to PW7 and
her husband. It has also been deposed that she is well conversant with the
handwriting of the defendant and can identify his handwriting and
signatures. The letter dated 01.08.1992 is in the handwriting of the
defendant and bears his signatures and the same has been exhibited as
Ex.PW7/29. Likewise letter dated 04.08.1993 is also written by the
defendant and the same has been exhibited as Ex.PW7/30. An e-mail
dated 21.04.1997 was sent by the defendant from his registered email id.
to the plaintiff. Copy of the e-mail has been exhibited as Ex.PW7/31.
Original undated two letters in the handwriting of the defendant sent to
the husband of PW7 (alongwith envelops), have been exhibited as
Ex.PW7/32 to Ex.PW7/35, respectively. It has also been deposed that the
defendant's wife Smt.Anjana Kumari also sent a letter 13.11.1998 to PW7
and her husband. The said letter has been written and signed by
Smt.Anjana Kumari. PW7 can identify her handwriting and signatures, as
she has seen her signing and writing. The said letter alongwith the
greetings have been exhibited as Ex.PW7/36 (Colly). The envelope
enclosing the aforesaid letter has been exhibited as Ex.PW7/37.
26. PW7 has next deposed that the original letters/aerograms dated
14.04.1998 (alongwith envelope), 26.10.1998 (alongwith envelope),
02.03.1999 (alongwith envelope), 27.09.1999, 18.11.1999, 10.12.1999,
19.12.1999 (alongwith envelope), 31.12.1999 (alongwith envelope),
01.02.2000, 24.08.2000, 04.10.2000, 24.04.2000 (alongwith envelope),
07.11.2000 (alongwith envelope), original undated letter (on the
letterhead of Marketscope) written by the defendant to the husband of
PW7; letters dated 15.05.2001 (alongwith envelope), 24.09.2001
(alongwith envelope) and 12.08.2002 (alongwith envelope) sent by the
defendant to the husband of PW7/PW7, are in his handwriting and signed
by him. The aforesaid letters and envelopes have been exhibited as
Ex.PW7/38 to Ex.PW/64, respectively. The office copy of the letter dated
18.12.2000 sent by Sh.Kishor Kumar to Standard & Chartered Grindlays
Bank, New Delhi bears the signatures of the husband of PW7 and the
same has been exhibited as Ex.PW7/65.
27. In the present case the cause of action arose on 21.06.2006 when the
property in question was disposed off by the defendant and since the
property in question is situated in Dwarka, New Delhi, this court has
territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
28. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff and carefully perused the affidavits
by way of evidence and the documents filed therewith. The evidence of
plaintiff has gone unchallenged and un-rebutted.
28. On the basis of the documents placed on record, the plaintiff has been able
to prove that at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff lent
Rs.14,83,704/- to the defendant for purchasing the property i.e. Flat no.68,
Sector 12, Pocket 3, Dwarka, New Delhi. The said property was
purchased by the defendant on hire purchase basis at a total cost of Rs.12
Lacs. The plaintiff has also been able to establish that the defendant
agreed to repay the loan amount to the plaintiff with 75% on the
profits/returns after the sale of the said property. Plaintiff has further been
able to establish that the defendant has sold the said property for Rs.40.00
lakhs, without the consent of the plaintiff and without repaying the loan
amount together with the share of the profits as agreed between the
parties, and purchased two properties, one in Jamshedpur and other at
Kundli. Plaintiff has also been able to establish that the defendant
misappropriated the funds of the plaintiff for his own benefit, which in
turn has caused loss to the plaintiff.
29. Having regard to the facts that the loan amount given by the plaintiff to
the defendant was Rs.14,83,704/-; the property at Dwarka was purchased
by the defendant for Rs.12 lacs, which property was sold by the defendant
for Rs.40 lacs without the consent of the plaintiff. The defendant has
failed to repay the loan amount together with profit as promised by the
defendant, and instead the defendant purchased two more properties; and
also the fact that the total profit earned by the defendant on the sale of the
Dwarka flat is Rs.28 lacs, out of which the share of plaintiff is Rs.21 lacs
(i.e. 75%), present suit is allowed. Defendant is liable to pay
Rs.35,83,704/- to the plaintiff.
30. In view of the above, plaintiff has been able to establish the case for grant
of decree as prayer for in the plaint. Therefore the present suit is decreed
in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Further, the defendant
shall pay Rs.35,83,704 to the plaintiff alongwith pendent lite and future
interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
31. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
(G.S.SISTANI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 19, 2014
ssn
